The electrical energy grid in the United States is experiencing quite a lot of volatility, some of which is self-imposed.
Turning first to the renewable energy sector, we have seen stoppages and claw-backs regarding funding. There are some public concerns regarding large-scale solar energy and wind turbines.
Turbines:
Environmental concerns: these include “Visual” pollution where the sheer size of turbines are objected to for their appearance on the landscape or waterfront to “Noise” pollution where people living near a wind farm might complain they are disturbed by the low frequency sound produced by the turbine.
Habitat concerns involve the amount of footprint required, in particular for turbines.
Carbon footprint: while the energy produced is clean, the manufacturing process of turbines is not carbon neutral.
Animal and marine concerns: migration patterns can be affected and marine life can be disturbed during construction of offshore turbines.
**both solar and nuclear power sources are viable alternatives
Solar: large solar field installations
Typically the objections raised on this front are about the amount of space used to facilitate these projects. Some homeowners have also expressed a concern for “farm land” and its disappearance and disruption to the food production chain.
Misinformation about solar: agrivoltaics do NOT replace or make null crop land. Animals may safely graze around the array(s) and crops can be grown successfully under them. That noted- solar companies need to be mindful of replacing and replanting native species when a large field goes up and also accommodating bee populations.
Swinging to the other side of the energy spectrum- Nuclear Energy:
Nuclear energy is clean and dependable. Nuclear plants do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions.
However- uranium extraction and the actual plants themselves have carbon and physical footprint implications- as does EVERYTHING used to create energy.
…”With respect to nuclear energy, the environmental benefits are compelling. The lifecycle emissions of nuclear compared to wind and solar are on par or better. The land-use requirements for nuclear are noticeably smaller. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the amount of land required for a wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a 1,000 megawatt reactor would be 218 square miles, roughly the size of San Francisco. With only one square mile, a nuclear reactor can deliver always-on, pollution-free power.
Nuclear is also the most dependable form of electricity, which is why it is drawing the attention of big tech who want reliable power 24/7. Nuclear power is by far the most reliable energy source and runs at full power 93 percent of the time, far more than wind, solar, and even natural gas and coal.”…
Addressing Six Common Concerns of the Nuclear Naysayers | RealClearEnergy
Where I’m netting out…for what that may be worth to you…
I like EVERYTHING to be on the table. Let’s set a big table. All of these sources have their pros and cons but at the end of the day businesses and residents of the U.S. are energy HOGS. You want to and need to power the grid.
I especially dislike seeing a viable resource shot down because someone- ANYone- thinks it’s “ugly”, “disgusting”, largely objecting for cosmetic personal opinions or unsupportable speculation about the source causing cancer.
I’d like to see us set a table with all choices, thoughtfully deployed, powering our national grid and all those piggy little datacenters you all want so very much.
Want to enjoy a big meal?? SET YOUR TABLE.
